Science in Christian Perspective
REACTION AND REBUTTAL
"ADAM AND ANTHROPOLOGY"
(See Journal ASA, 22, 88 (1970) )
Rolland D. McCune, Central Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Paul H. Seely, Portland, Oregon
From: JASA 23 (March 1971): 26
Rolland D. McCune
I read with near amusement the article by Paul H. Seely in the September issue
of the Journal. I say "near amusement" because the content
of the article
would be hopelessly ludicrous to a Bible-believing Christian had it
not been written
as sober truth and intended to be received as such. I must confess that it has
been a long time since I have seen that much scientific and
theological mish mash
within the confines of one short article.
If Mr. Seely enjoys spinning his anthropological yarn that much, I
would implore
the Journal to spare its readers any implication that his views on man bear resemblance
to those of the Bible. It is somewhat unpleasant to a student of Scripture to
see the Word of God evaporate before his very eyes in the name of
"standard" hermeneutics, whatever on earth that may mean.
If Mr. Seely
has ever had so much as one class period in Genesis, Old Testament, Theology or
Hermeneutics he has utterly discredited his teacher-or it could be that someone
simply failed to wake him when the bell sounded.
While the content of such an article may be palatable to an
enlightened anthropologist
who has at long last expunged his theological prejudices based on the Word of
the living God, it is repulsive to a Bible scholar who believes that the first
Adam of Genesis one through four was just as historical as the
"last Adam"
of the New Testament who is none other than our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Such abysmal ignorance of Bible truth and interpretation as presented
in Mr. Seely's
article does not commend the Journal to serious acceptance.
Paul H. Seely,
Mr. McCune, a graduate of Grace Theological Seminary, writes from the
perspective
of one who takes "flood geology" seriously ... as a
satisfactory explanation
of all pre-historic, scientific data. He, no doubt, finds any consideration of
genuine science unworthy of "serious acceptance". Consequently, the
readers of the Journal, who do not take the sciences cum grano sails as does
McCune, will probably not take McCune's letter too seriously.
However, Mr. McCune's letter should serve as a powerful reminder (even to those
of us who do not want to remember) that "flood geology" is
an extremely
popular and widespread delusion . . . and that, as Dr. Roger Cuffey said,
I believe that it is very important to put the views of such men as van de Fliert before the Christian public, so that they are not so likely to be mislead by the erroneous view of people (like the flood geologists) ignorant of modern earth sciences. (Journal ASA 21, 71 (1969))
When I think of the years I spent fighting the sciences and defending the faith
via Whitcomb and Morris et al ... til snatched like a brand from the burning by
reading the writings of genuinely competent Christian scientists in
the Journal,
I am again impressed to call for more effort on the part of the
members of the
ASA to make the sciences as they really exist more widely known.
The Whitcomb and Morris delusion, mythology, or whatever one wishes
to call such
a well-meant, but ill-advised pseudo-science has captured literally hundreds of
Christian high schools, Bible schools, and seminaries . . . and
through the graduates
of these schools, the minds of thousands of Christians. It spreads like a giant
cancer . . . unfelt by the Church for a time, but in the end . . . making its
obscurantism result in disillusionment, debacle, and spiritual death.
The ASA and its work are largely unknown to the evangelical world . .
. especially
to the carefully sequestered students and laymen. In times like these, this is
a shame. I think it is imperative that every ASA member think long and hard as
to how they can help in displacing pseudo-science from the
evangelical world.
I would conclude with just one small proposal: that the article
"Fundamentalism
and the Fundamentals of Geology" (Journal ASA 21, 69 (1969))
along with the
recent Symposium on The Relation Between the Bible and Science (Journal ASA 21,
97124 (1969) ) be reprinted as a separate booklet (or pamphlets) . .
. for distribution
to students and laymen. Or, at the very least, that permission be granted for
reprinting these articles to anyone desirous of doing so.